“There have indeed been over 15,500 wounded. But of those, 8375 returned to duty within 72 hours - so although those wounds weren’t funny perhaps those wounds weren’t quite serious either. Still, 7347 troops have been wounded severely enough to require over 72 hours recuperation. Furthermore, 2,791 Soldiers were wounded seriously enough to require evacuation to Stateside Army Medical facilities. And 280 amputees have been treated in Army facilities as a result of the war. A lot of unscrupulous types who just want to pretend to “support the troops” ignore these facts in favor of the less correct (and more impressive) claim that 15,500 troops have been seriously wounded, or maimed, or mutilated. The real numbers are big enough - I just can’t understand why some feel the need to pad them.”
280 amputees seems pretty reasonable to me. Why would anyone ever complain about that? Unless you’re one of the AMPUTEES!
If you were one of the 2,082 dead or 7,347 wounded, would you feel the same?
Since it’s such a safe place to be, why not take your family. You can fly into Bagdad, drive the airport road and stay in a nice hotel outside of the green zone and report back as to how it went.
Isn’t that the bottom line? For all the rhetoric going back and forth about how great things are going, when the rubber hits the road, ask yourself if you would take your family. If the answer is no, which I’m pretty sure it will be, ask yourself if it will ever be safe to do that. I’ve been in Iraq when it was safe and would never think of going now, so maybe things are going quite as well as we’ve been led to believe.
“Since it’s such a safe place to be, why not take your family. You can fly into Bagdad, drive the airport road and stay in a nice hotel outside of the green zone and report back as to how it went.”
I have. It’s pretty rough. Actually spelled Baghdad.
Here is a quote to add to your list… I disagree with you 100% Casey!
One of the huge factors involved in the large number of wounded and amputations is simple and usually overlooked. In every other action the U.S. has ever been involved in a much larger number of these soldiers would have died. Medical and armor technology saves soldiers and Marine lives everyday. So when one of my guys gets shot in the chest, he gets treated for a bruise, becomes and statistic for RTD (return to duty), changes his pants, and goes back to work.
Medical advances are one reason for fewer deaths and therefore, more injuries. Better tourniquets, dressing that help the blood to clot, and more forward field hospitals (CSH) are what I was speaking of.
Armor technology is totally different. And everyone has it. Everyone. For a long time now.
It would be so irresponsible to just pull out now. We must wait until the Iraqi military can defend their country by themselves before we leave. The people to make that determination are the commanders on the ground. I will say that again because it is important. Commanders on the ground are the ones that have the diagnostic ability to decide when an iraqi unit is now able to assume control over a particular area or sector. Not any politician in D.C. Certainly no pundit on the beltway or on CNN has that ability. Do some research and see what happened to the Kurds and Shia after the gulf war when we left without finishing the job. I will make it easy for you. Genocide. Not a very nice word but that is reality. The killing field you speak of would certainly occur if we abandon them now.
Have a nice day.
And here’s where you’re wrong:
"The point is Iraq is not a safe place for anyone almost 3 years after we invaded and all those who say we have to stay until we are done have never defined what “done” looks like. "
Actually, over 80% of Iraq is safe. Let’s try and be a little more observant about what is really taking place over there.
Unfortunately Saddam is still around. Alive and well. And with every possibility of getting off with time served. Why he was never tried in the Hague is beyond comprehension. Another screw up by our Administration.
“Why he was never tried in the Hague is beyond comprehension.”
That is too funny. What the poor little Iraqi’s are too stupid to do it themselves? There American puppet masters aren’t strong enough to make them do it right? The Hague is a joke and Saddam’s crime happened in Iraq against the Iraqi people so all the logic in the worl dictates he is tried by the Iraqi people in Iraq.
What the poor little Iraqi’s are too stupid to do it themselves?
Ahh, why yes…
You think there is anyone with any brains left in that country? All the elite and educated got passports and took their cash and lives out of that shithole years ago. Jordan has more wealthy Iraqi’s than Iraq itself (and they are like displaced people from New Orleans - they are never coming back). The only poor bastards left there now either supported Saddam or wanted to get into the Baath party, or were too poor or stupid to get out.
I have a few videos of people like Daniel Pearl, Jack Hensley and Kenneth Bigley. I think they are pretty good evidence of the level of cruelty that the insurgency posseses. Saddam they are not, but if we leave now, the same thing will happen.
They do have to make their own way. We must set them up for success. If we leave now the fail without much doubt.
I don’t favor the Hague option, but on the other hand, the Iraqis and they’re puppet masters don’t seem to be able to provide much in the way of security for this trial. They seem too stupid to keep lawyers involved in it from getting killed, at any rate.
It would be so irresponsible to just pull out now. We must wait until the Iraqi military can defend their country by themselves before we leave.
I thought we were over there fighting the terrorists so that we wouldn’t have to fight them here. Are you saying that we can leave Iraq when their military can fight the terrorists for us? Why would the terrorists stay there to fight the Iraqi military when they’re there to fight us? I’m so confused.
Ah Ken, the queen of the Lavender room. So good to hear from you. How have you been? Well I trust.
I find that it isn’t difficult to confuse you so I will use short words and sentences.
Believe me Ken, we are making great strides in killing all those terrorists that would love to come to our country and blow up a few thousand of our citizens.
The insurgency is not made up of only one particular type of terrorist. There are several in fact. There are those who have big plans, those that simply want us out of their country, and many others.
A stable Iraq that can defend itself and it’s borders accomplishes the goals that your administration has set forth. Good luck with re-election!
Wow. If you didn’t happen to be such an incredible ass I would think you where racist. You know nothing about the Iraqi people or anything about who is starting the goverment or court systems and yet you act like you know it all enough to belittle them. You are just a typical leftist. It your way or your worthless.
Nice.
No. I should have been more clear. Over 80% of the inhabited portions of Iraq is considered safe. Of course Baghdad is the most sensitive since it’s the capitol and it was Saddam’s 2nd favorite city (after his own).
This is what people mean when they speak about the mainstream media. You wouldn’t have known that most of Iraq is safe.
Ah Ken, the queen of the Lavender room. So good to hear from you. How have you been? Well I trust.
I find that it isn’t difficult to confuse you so I will use short words and sentences.
Believe me Ken, we are making great strides in killing all those terrorists that would love to come to our country and blow up a few thousand of our citizens.
The insurgency is not made up of only one particular type of terrorist. There are several in fact. There are those who have big plans, those that simply want us out of their country, and many others.
A stable Iraq that can defend itself and it’s borders accomplishes the goals that your administration has set forth. Good luck with re-election!
Thanks for keeping it simple. However, don’t make it so simple that it is content-free, as above.
First, didn’t I just read that there are 1,500,000,000 Muslims in the world? We gonna kill them all? Is there some indication (besides some claim that the insurgency is (was?) in its “last throes”) that the numbers of insurgents is declining?
Second, if they would love to come to our country and blow us up, why are they in Iraq? Were they in Iraq before the invasion? Is that what they wanted to do before the invasion?
Which of those types of terrorists are we there to fight? I assume they are the ones who have big plans, because it would certainly not be the ones who just want us out of Iraq: that would be circular reasoning. Why are the ones with big plans in Iraq? If we weren’t in Iraq, would they be in Iraq? Seems like you are saying yes. Therefore, their big plans have something to do with Iraq, or they are wasting their time, right?
Finally, how is it that having a secure Iraq makes us safer than prior to the invasion? Were there lots of the “come over and blow us up” terrorist types in Iraq before the invasion? If we kill 'em all, and lock up Iraq, then we are safe(r)?
Gosh, I’m still confused. Instead of short words and sentences, try logic. Thanks.
Speaking of padding numbers:
The casualty rate from the first Gulf War is nearly 40 percent: That is to say, nearly 40percent of the U.S. vets from that one are on some type of disability due to their time in the Gulf during that war. Some say Gulf War syndrome is a myth, but I have friends who served who think otherwise. Who knows what new stuff we will be seeing from Iraq 2, ocaused not by the enemy but by our own gov. (innoculations & whatnot).
More facts:
Of the 1,970 US deaths in Iraq through Oct. 15, 2005, 1,534 were “hostile” and 436 were “non-hostile”.
Of the hostile deaths, 1,170 were KIA, 355 died of wounds, 7 died while MIA, and 2 died in captivity.
Of the non-hostile deaths, 299 were accidents, 48 were self-inflicted, 42 were due to illness, 2 were of undetermined cause, and 35 are pending determination of cause.
The third leading cause of deaths was accidents (299), behind explosive devices (766) and gunshots (424). There have been more killed in vehicle crashes (160) than aircraft crashes (132).
The Army makes up 46% of the force, and has incurred 68% of the deaths. The Marines make up 10% of the force and have incurred 29% of the deaths. The Navy makes up 20% of the force and has incurred 2% of the deaths, and the Air Force makes up 25% of the force and has incurred 1% of the deaths.
Active forces make up 55% of the force and have incurred 75% of the deaths while National Guard and Reserves make up 45% of the force and have incurred 25% of the deaths.
Officers make up 16% of the force and have incurred 10% of the deaths, enlisted make up 84% of the force and have incurred 90% of the deaths.
Whites make up 67% of the force and have incurred 74% of the deaths. Hispanic, Black, Asian, and other minorities make up 33% of the force and have incurred 26% of the deaths.
Males make up 84% of the force and have incurred 98% of the deaths. Females make up 16% of the force and have incurred 2% of the deaths.
Source: Navy Times, November 7, 2005
First, didn’t I just read that there are 1,500,000,000 Muslims in the world? We gonna kill them all? Is there some indication (besides some claim that the insurgency is (was?) in its “last throes”) that the numbers of insurgents is declining?
No Ken. There are many great Muslims in the world. We are looking for the fundamentalist type. Wahhabi’s, Answar al-Islam, Al Qaeda and similar groups are who we are fighting here.
They are far fewer in numbers today.
**Second, if they would love to come to our country and blow us up, why are they in Iraq? Were they in Iraq before the invasion? Is that what they wanted to do before the invasion? **
Because I am not one of them, and I am not Kreskin, nor do I have any powers of clairvoyance, I cannot tell you what their thoughts were. I know from several that I talked to, that they would love to come here and cause pain. Do they have the means to make that happen? Someone does. It is just a matter of time before those 2 people are matched up. Unless we get to them first.
Which of those types of terrorists are we there to fight? I assume they are the ones who have big plans, because it would certainly not be the ones who just want us out of Iraq: that would be circular reasoning. Why are the ones with big plans in Iraq? If we weren’t in Iraq, would they be in Iraq? Seems like you are saying yes. Therefore, their big plans have something to do with Iraq, or they are wasting their time, right?
We are after the big fish. At the same time we all know that the little fish are the ones that the Iraqis are going to have to deal with whence we leave. The big guys need foot soldiers and it is easier to recruit someone that is already a little pissed off. That is logical.
**Finally, how is it that having a secure Iraq makes us safer than prior to the invasion? Were there lots of the “come over and blow us up” terrorist types in Iraq before the invasion? If we kill 'em all, and lock up Iraq, then we are safe(r)? **
Ken, if you think Saddam didn’t have certain weapons, you are very naive. My personal theory is that he would not have used them against us, but would easily have sold them or even given them away to anyone who would use them against us. There is a very interesting audio recording of a telephone conversation floating around. I looked for a link but could not find one. It is somewhat ambiguous, but somewhat clear. 2 iraqi army officers are talking about a vehicle that is still someplace where it shouldn’t be the day before the inspections are to start. It could be harmless, but at the same time I dont think it is.
I have much more to say, but I must run. Have a good evening.
And don’t forget, 100,000 Americans have been killed in motor vehicle accidents since the start of the war.
Let’s ban driving too!